Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Fiery crash: 2 dead as helicopter falls in Seattle, WA

Discussion in 'Phantom 2 Vision Discussion' started by Qwadjok, Mar 18, 2014.

  1. Qwadjok

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    And the FAA says our small quadcopters are dangerous. Here, the copter pilot and photographer were killed and many more could have been if this bird crashed into a crowd.
    [youtube]http://youtu.be/QBdvZ8jLDq0 [/youtube]

    QJ
     
  2. nintendrone64

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Simi Valley, CA

    I wouldn't exactly say this is a great way to promote Drones...

    God Bless those poor lost souls.
     
  3. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    +1. Hopefully someone uses this as an example why drones should be utilized.
     
  4. Qwadjok

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    Ninetendrone64

    Please don't take my post as a smudge on the pilot or photographer. It is indeed a tragic loss.

    If smaller lightweight UAV's were utilized for localized filming or photography, maybe losses such as this could be prevented.

    My prayers go out to their families.

    QJ
     
  5. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
  6. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    Great write-up Peter! I was hoping you'd write something referencing this tragedy. Hopefully you get another interview on network TV.
     
  7. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
    Thank you. It was a tragic event. My intent with this piece is not to use it as a means to promote drones, but rather as a means to inject some logic into the public discussion.

    I am both a full-size commercial helicopter pilot and a Phantom pilot. I've had emergency landings in full-size helicopters. Thankfully, they were scary but uneventful (no injuries and no damage). If I had a choice though, I'd choose my Phantom falling from the sky over a JetRanger any day.
     
  8. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
  9. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
  10. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA

    Wow! Attorney and helicopter pilot? Anything you don't do? :)
     
  11. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
    Underwater welding.
     
  12. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    lol. Everyone has an achilles heal! :lol:
     
  13. Qwadjok

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    Peter

    Any updates you can post as to the outcome of the first FAA penalty out East? It still amazes me that the FAA can claim they control airspace from the ground up when it is a known fact, they only have jurisdiction 400 feet or higher. Federal airspace does not start at ground level.

    Keep up the good work and stay safe in that JetRanger....... :geek:

    QJ
     
  14. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
    Only the Notice of Appeal has been filed. Nothing further as of yet. Thx for the well-wishes, but the only flying I do now is with multicopters. Full-size helicopters are a bit too expensive. :)
     
  15. dkatz42

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    This is not true; the Federal Aviation Act says that the FAA has jurisdiction over "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft." This means down to the ground in certain places (specifically anywhere where Class B, C, D, and E airspace goes to the surface) and presumably also means down to the ground around any airport.
     
  16. Qwadjok

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    If it is untrue then post a link here for everyone to read that supports your claim. Counter it with proof the FAA can interfere with an RC hobbiest or stop private citizens from starting a business and charge for their services.

    You can't. Dont be vague. To the ground does not mean to the ground everywhere. i also noticed you did not mention what the FAA's minimum altitude is. Im sure this only applies to areas immediately surrounding an ATC controlled airport and not to the farmer who flies his RC quad on his farm.

    The FAA is over reaching its authority which is why their first attempt to fine a man $10k was thrown out of court. Even though they pkan to appeal it will be dismissed on the grounds they lack the authority. I suggest you Google the bogus FAA fine and familiarize yourself with the facts of the case.

    QJ
     
  17. dkatz42

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Apparently we're talking past each other; I was challenging the assertion that the FAA only has "jurisdiction 400 feet or higher" figuring that you meant that was the case everywhere, and you apparently thought that I meant that the FAA has jurisdiction to the ground everywhere. Neither appears to be the case. The general powers of the FAA can be found in the Federal Aviation Act itself; the Cliff's Notes version can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights though the whole act is available online for the highly motivated. The control of airspace down to the surface (in certain areas) can be seen by looking at any aeronautical chart, which displays areas where controlled airspace goes to the ground (the area around airports in class B, C, and D airspace, as well as areas of class E airspace near some airports with instrument approaches). With enough digging I'm sure one can find evidence that aeronautical charts reflect regulatory authority. And the supposed "known fact" of the 400 feet figure appears nowhere (except in the infamous non-regulatory 1981 AC)--the FAA's authority clearly applies down to the ground in some areas, and is quite high in other areas--there's a spot near here where the ceiling of class G airspace is 11,500 MSL (meaning uncontrolled below that altitude).

    None of this has anything to do with commercial or non-commercial use, or UAVs, or anything else--the FAA has sole and broad authority over the airspace it controls, though not without proper procedure.

    Having said that, I actually agree with you on pretty much all that you say--the farmer flying his UAV around his fields should be able to do so, etc., and it doesn't appear to be the case that the FAA has the regulatory authority to back its stated policies at the moment. The case of the $10K fine is outrageous and was struck down appropriately, IMHO. Basically they're trying to keep a lid on things until they manage to get some regs written and run through the NPRM process, in a rather heavy-handed way.